> I saw a program tonight called "Conspiracy Theory - Did > We Land On The Moon ?", and I have to say it was quite > convincing > > A man called Bill Kaysing (many references to him found with > Google, eg http://www.okneoac.com/kaysing.html) claims that > so-called Moon landings by NASA were in fact filmed in the high > deserts of Nevada. He cites such discrepancies as > > - shadows that indicate multiple light sources > - persons and craft details well-lit even in the darkest shadows I missed the program but my wife MAY have recorded it. This has been well addressed in the past on the ARocket list to which I subscribe and I believe there is also very substantial rebuttal available of all points. Some quite capable space people who are quite independent of NASA reject these cklaims utterly (as can be imagined). The easily made points that seem hardest to refute to me are the laser retro-reflectors left on the moon - you can target these any day you want given the right equipment. Of course the conspiracy theorists will say that those with such equipment are in on the hoax. Anyone who wants an 80 odd email thread on this just ask (offlist) and I'll send them to you :-) I met Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) a few years ago and (for reasons that would upset some people if I shared them here) I believe his story. Here's part of the email exchange on this Henry Spencer is well known as a space and C guru and is ALWAYS right (almost :-) ). RM ____________________________________________ On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, John Dom wrote: > Isn't the laser reflector put on Luna working anymore? Several of the Apollo missions emplaced laser retroreflectors as part of their surface-experiment packages. Those are still working, although it takes professional equipment and serious effort to demonstrate this (you get an average of just one photon back per laser pulse). >That 'd be proof, no? No. It just proves that a soft landing was made, not that it was manned. One or two of the Soviet unmanned landers also had reflectors. It's a religion. The Apollo-never-happened believers just reinterpret or ignore any conflicting evidence. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net __________________________________________________ and ____________________________ A fellow in a cafe overheard a friend and me talking about this stuff and commented about the retroreflector being proof of landing to which I replied that it takes specialised equipment to see it and "THEY" are the ones with the equipment, to which he replied that he had seen it himself in his Dad's lab in Boulder (I think it was Boulder). Whew! Looking forward: Alan Shinn _____________________________ PR people definitely altered Apollo fotos for release, tragic in light of current questions. This is a universal practice in PR, it should not surprise anyone. Earthlight is very bright and was always present on the Apollo sites. In addition there were reflections from equipment and from the spacesuits themselves to offer some fill light. Note that the dust settles very rapidly and there is no diffusion or spreading, difficult to take an entire sound stage and evacuate it. BC _________________________________________________ Connie Steiert wrote: > > There were several other funny things that they pointed out. Such as > > being able to clearly see subjects that were in deep shadow (as though > > they used photofloods), > The moon's surface is somewhat retroreflective. A portion of the sunlight tends to be sent back toward the sun. Some of the pictures of an astronaut's shadow shows a bright "halo", or enhanced brightness right around the shadow. This concentration of light (relative to that for a Lambertian reflector) should provide the back lighting. The retroflecting property is due to the presence in regolith of many tiny glass beads, which work like 3M projector screens (which are covered with glass beads). Charles ______________________________________________ On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Jake Anderson wrote: > in the 70's (I think) there was a TV show about astronauts on the moon > and the way they got the people to "bounce" around was to tie them to big > helium balloons that correctly offset their weight > apparently it looked "right" The real trick is how you make the *dust* behave right. Dust in vacuum at 1/6G behaves very differently from dust in atmosphere at 1G. Henry Spencer henry@spsystems.net ___________________________________________________ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.